3 ms·

Maybe apple will have a bigger effect on ai adoption than any other company. Local inference is huge for anything that requires even a little bit of privacy.

rcarr 4y ago
Convenience will be the biggest factor. Whoever makes it easier for the end consumer to get what they want wins. It's why ChatGPT made such a big splash in comparison to all the other AI models which were also impressive. Local inference may play a part in that if it's quicker but if the last twenty years are anything to go by it will be convenience rather than privacy which is the deciding factor. And Apple do tend to make the UX slicker than other companies so I wouldn't put it past them ending up the biggest player.
- brookst 4y ago
  > it will be convenience rather than privacy which is the deciding factor This. Nobody really cares about local processing for privacy. Even those that claim to often don't mean it. Remember the total freakout over Apple's proposed local, privacy-preserving processing to detect CSAM before uploading it to iCloud? The consensus seemed to be that secret, opaque, and un-auditable cloud-based scanning was much preferable.
  - sedatk 4y ago
    Local CSAM scanning wasn't an open book either. Also, it wasn't mutually exclusive with cloud scanning.
    - FloatArtifact 4y ago
      However, there was enough of an outcrying by the community and my experts that it was pulled. Therefore end users do care about privacy when they understand the implications. After all, it's hard to care when you don't have power as an end user too act on those feelings.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Do you think the current regime of Google/etc doing ad hoc scans on cloud storage, with no transparency about who is requesting scans for what, is more private?
    - brookst 4y ago
      It was pretty open — auditable and cryptographically proven sources for all triggering hashes, auditable updates. And it was mutually exclusive with cloud scanning, as it was part of E2EE.
      - sedatk 4y ago
        About mutual exclusivity, you may be right. I probably misremember that specific detail, but that was before Apple enabled E2EE on iCloud. It was removed as a feature back then when they suggested local CSAM scanning. "It was pretty open" Not really. The scanning code wasn't open source. Apple didn't explain how their proprietary hashing algorithm worked, let alone providing any source code. It was just the promise of Apple about how the whole thing would work. If that's sufficient, then iCloud scanning is as open as local scanning. Auditability of DB updates doesn't mean much either. Even if a third party organization detected "new additions" to the CSAM DB, what would be the next step? There would be no way to verify if those hashes actually correspond to CSAM. A dictatorship, for example, would just say "yes it's CSAM, trust us", and you'd have no option but to trust their word. Even in the US, there is no way to verify if CSAM DB fully corresponds to actual CSAM. It's just NCMEC's word. We simply don't know.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
Also for anyone not in a cellular sweetspot.

rcarr 4y ago

Convenience will be the biggest factor. Whoever makes it easier for the end consumer to get what they want wins. It's why ChatGPT made such a big splash in comparison to all the other AI models which were also impressive. Local inference may play a part in that if it's quicker but if the last twenty years are anything to go by it will be convenience rather than privacy which is the deciding factor. And Apple do tend to make the UX slicker than other companies so I wouldn't put it past them ending up the biggest player.

brookst 4y ago
> it will be convenience rather than privacy which is the deciding factor This. Nobody really cares about local processing for privacy. Even those that claim to often don't mean it. Remember the total freakout over Apple's proposed local, privacy-preserving processing to detect CSAM before uploading it to iCloud? The consensus seemed to be that secret, opaque, and un-auditable cloud-based scanning was much preferable.
- sedatk 4y ago
  Local CSAM scanning wasn't an open book either. Also, it wasn't mutually exclusive with cloud scanning.
  - FloatArtifact 4y ago
    However, there was enough of an outcrying by the community and my experts that it was pulled. Therefore end users do care about privacy when they understand the implications. After all, it's hard to care when you don't have power as an end user too act on those feelings.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Do you think the current regime of Google/etc doing ad hoc scans on cloud storage, with no transparency about who is requesting scans for what, is more private?
  - brookst 4y ago
    It was pretty open — auditable and cryptographically proven sources for all triggering hashes, auditable updates. And it was mutually exclusive with cloud scanning, as it was part of E2EE.
    - sedatk 4y ago
      About mutual exclusivity, you may be right. I probably misremember that specific detail, but that was before Apple enabled E2EE on iCloud. It was removed as a feature back then when they suggested local CSAM scanning. "It was pretty open" Not really. The scanning code wasn't open source. Apple didn't explain how their proprietary hashing algorithm worked, let alone providing any source code. It was just the promise of Apple about how the whole thing would work. If that's sufficient, then iCloud scanning is as open as local scanning. Auditability of DB updates doesn't mean much either. Even if a third party organization detected "new additions" to the CSAM DB, what would be the next step? There would be no way to verify if those hashes actually correspond to CSAM. A dictatorship, for example, would just say "yes it's CSAM, trust us", and you'd have no option but to trust their word. Even in the US, there is no way to verify if CSAM DB fully corresponds to actual CSAM. It's just NCMEC's word. We simply don't know.

jazzyjackson 4y ago

Also for anyone not in a cellular sweetspot.